tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post8558050466178307064..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Without A CreedBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69134586136375636002010-06-10T06:48:35.253-06:002010-06-10T06:48:35.253-06:00Brad,
I think you are right that the lyrics in Ne...Brad,<br /><br />I think you are right that the lyrics in Newdow's song may be hypocritical. But I never thought about its lyrics that seriously. Perhaps Ray, our expert on the issue, will chime in.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3040470502314253062010-06-09T23:30:55.671-06:002010-06-09T23:30:55.671-06:00Uh...
I know Jon wrote that because HE is the per...Uh...<br /><br />I know Jon wrote that because HE is the person to whom my whole post was directed...hence the "Jon:" header at the top. I don't want anything from you but thanks for asking. Again, I have no idea why in the hell you hijacked my comment. All I was trying to do was point out the silly hypocrisy that exists in Newdow's song lyrics...that's it.<br /><br /><em>Spatchcock indeed. I already agreed with Jon. I still don't know what you want from me, Brad. Fact is fact and the rest is spatchcock</em><br /><br />Looks like you are the one who looks like "Spatchcock" for failing to recognize that I wasn't even talking to you.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-85474513619238376092010-06-09T22:44:41.398-06:002010-06-09T22:44:41.398-06:00I agree with you when you write that "those c...<i><br />I agree with you when you write that "those creeds and confessions were tainted with Toryism which we know GW rejected." </i><br /><br />Jon wrote that. I do agree with him, in the larger sense of "creeds" defining private theological beliefs being a bogus hermeneutic, ala Lillback's "method" and thesis.<br /><br /><i>"George Washington had honesty and truth within his marrow. When given rules he stuck by them as rigid as an aarow. Remember, please, twas he who when that oath had its invention, presided at that noble Constitutional Convention. To think that after all those 55 men did sign, upon that oath, he'd alter it? is something to deride. That man who was as honest as a person can be, was not the kind to spatchcock words at that ceremony."</i><br /><br />Since Michael Newdow put this in the form of a question, if you actually waded through his bad vocal, clownish costume, [but not-bad guitar], accompanied by visuals with "hoax" and "alien abduction," what, are you asking me to take Michael Newdow seriously, to parse his presentation like a legitimate thinker like John Locke?<br /><br />As for "So Help Me God," GWash swore on a Bible, which is the same thing, GWash swearing on a Bible is a fact that neither Newdow nor our own beloved Mr. Soller disputes.<br /><br />Spatchcock indeed. I already agreed with Jon. I still don't know what you want from me, Brad. Fact is fact and the rest is spatchcock.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-85213108991597285182010-06-09T22:16:31.323-06:002010-06-09T22:16:31.323-06:00Jon:
Doesn't Michael Newdow argue that Washin...Jon:<br /><br />Doesn't Michael Newdow argue that Washington stuck to oaths as a matter of principle? From his "So Help Me God" song:<br /><br /><em>"George Washington had honesty and truth within his marrow. When given rules he stuck by them as rigid as an aarow. Remember, please, twas he who when that oath had its invention, presided at that noble Constitutional Convention. To think that after all those 55 men did sign, upon that oath, he'd alter it? is something to deride. That man who was as honest as a person can be, was not the kind to spatchcock words at that ceremony."</em><br /><br />Here's the link:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFw18Yw2zhw&feature=PlayList&p=D445A9F67A03C586&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=68<br /><br />I agree with you when your write that "those creeds and confessions were tainted with Toryism which we know GW rejected." I think these were seen by GW more as social obligations than sincere covenants with God. But Lillback isn't the only one who is wrong here. Clearly Newdow can't be arguing that Washington stuck by creeds/oaths "as rigid as an aarow." <br /><br />So help me God!Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40699947592400330182010-06-09T16:07:36.081-06:002010-06-09T16:07:36.081-06:00But, at this level of scrutiny, we lose the abilit...<i>But, at this level of scrutiny, we lose the ability to use creeds and official doctrines of churches as "shorthand" for what a Founder believed.</i> <br /><br />True. Bad method. Indeed, the private beliefs of any of the Founders is pretty irrelevant; it's their public character and actions that are.<br /><br />I remember our parish priest once confiding some doubts about the Trinity. Big deal. He was still the parish priest.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com